Its fairly amazing the revisionist history being undertaken by Google and the Fandroids. I get a laugh out of these people saying Apple copied them when you can look at preliminary Android UI and hardware designs and see that Blackberry and Nokia were the intended copy victims. After Apple revealed their first iPhone, then Android quickly morphed into something else. Samsung obviously copied Apple. I reckon it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if and to what extent Samsung is liable for their infringements. I think it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but IANAL.

you want to talk about "revisionist history"? and i'll throw in "confirmation bias" too.

here's one of the earliest articles about Andoid's "coming-out party. note that this is not Andoid's RELEASE , that would be October 21st 2008 with it's first retail hardware design: the T-Mobile G1 (HTC Dream).

note that the two main design ideas for Android's hardware were the typical hardware designs of the time:

the candy-bar with full keyboard,

and the big-screen with function buttons at the bottom.

these represent the common designs of most of the phones that had been available for MANY years before the Android platform took off, and also before Apple even REVEALED the iPhone in January 2007 and later RELEASED it in June 2007.

shall we be bold and claim the Apple iPhone clearly copies the "big-screen with function button at bottom" previous designs ?

today the " smartphone with function buttons at the bottom" is still popular, as seen in image two of the CNET article, compared to current devices that also have up to 4 buttons at the bottom like most Android's today.

Android did not "copy Nokia and Rim first, then copy iPhone later", Android early development hardware was based on the two most popular designs for ALL phones of the time:

candybar-full-keyboard

large-screen with function buttons on bottom.

those designs were prevalent in phones YEARS before the iphone was even announced.

to say that a full-screen smartphone with function buttons at the bottom today copies iPhone's design is an gross display of ignorance that clearly demonstrates an immature knowledge of the history of phone design.

Three points of apple's lawsuit are:
-Rounded corners
-A border around the screen that is thicker at the top and bottom (but equal) and thinner on the sides (but the sides are equal)
-A aluminum band around the side of the phone.

Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006:

It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.

1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?

2) The three points of the lawsuit are?:

First Claim: Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125

Second Claim: Federal trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114

U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 is for the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of sixteen colorful icons.

U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 is for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.

U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side.]

Third Claim: Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114

No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon.

No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon.

No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon.

No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon.

No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon.

No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon.

Pending No. 85/041,463 is the iTunes icon, which is a riff on U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038, the desktop iTunes logo.

Fourth claim: common law trademark infringement

Fifth claim: Unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code

Sixth claim: Unjust enrichment

Seventh claim: Infringement of the ’002 patent

Eighth claim: Infringement of the ’381 patent

Ninth claim: Infringement of the ’134 patent

Tenth claim: Infringement of the ’828 patent

Eleventh claim: Infringement of the ’915 patent

Twelfth claim: Infringement of the ’891 patent

Thirteenth claim: Infringement of the ’533 patent

Claims fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen: infringement of design patents
You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz.

And here is a quote from a site that details the situation well…

Oh, and don’t conflate trade dress with Apple’s doomed copyright-based “look and feel” lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90s — it’s totally different. Trade dress law is well-established, and Apple itself has a history of successfully pursuing trade dress claims in the Northern District of California. In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power for knocking off the iMac’s trade dress, winning injunctions in both cases and eventually getting extremely restrictive settlements that effectively removed the infringing products from the marketplace.

It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.

Oh. I've been reading DED/RDM for quite awhile as standalone. I've been shocked amazed and awed at the vitriol spewed here when his byline comes up - no matter how trenchant his observations or points.

Yeah right. Prove it. When DED mentioned google was trying to "silence him" was he trolling for page hits or just talking about how it sucks to be in an accident and out for a few weeks?

It’s amazing you post this crap as if you aren’t going to be called out on your lies.

1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?

2

You see all those trademark infringments on the icons? That’s all about TouchWiz.

So tell us again how the lawsuit has nothing to do with any software?

1. I didn't make that case with Samsung in the FIRST PLACE. If you think I did, then SHOW ME WHERE.

2. I didn't say that the lawsuit had NOTHING to do with the software. IN fact, I've mentioned SEVERAL TIMES that Apple had a STRONG case with TouchWiz, and with CERTAIN phones (like the Galaxy S variants).

But they're ALSO including phones (Like the Nexus S and Transform) that do NOT use touchwiz and they also DON't look like the iphone the way that phones like the Vibrant does. Their software related claims (in this case) are strong, as are SOME of their hardware claims. But they're also listing phones like the Continuum (has a whole second screen), Transform (stock android/keyboard), Nexus S (curved screen, stock android) in with phones they have those Valid claims for (Vibrant) which could hurt their case.

Also, the messaging icon listed in the trademark dispute (the image you linked) is the stock Android image. It's also a fairly obvious one. Unless you want to claim that Apple invented emoticons and chat bubbles.

So, just to clarify because you didn't get it the last dozen times I've said it in the past two days:
A: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to touchwiz (even Android blogs said Samsung was treading on thin ice when they announced the new version of touchwiz). I've said this from the start.
B: Apple has a STRONG CASE when it comes to specific phones, like the Galaxy S line, but the "Rounded corners and borders around the touchscreen" claim is BULLS**T because the design was NOT originated by Apple (it's inherent in the design of cellphones, and it has been for YEARS.
C: I NEVER claimed that Apple copied Samsung, nor did I claim that the F700 was released before the iphone. What I've said that claiming that Samsung somehow threw together an entirely new phone and UI within a MONTH of Apple announcing the iphone is absurd.

I would put the same points a third time, but I doubt it would sink in then either. You'll most likely quote what I wrote above and ask me the SAME questions I already answered. You do it every single article. You seem to assume that just because SOME people make a claim, then EVERYONE who holds a similar position makes that claim. It doesn't work that way.

First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..

So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.

Now, let's address how Apple does these things and gets away with it..

Well it's easy.. Steve Jobs has this perfected from the Xerox days.. he goes and "partners" with companies like Samsung, Motorola and others and asks them to make a phone to connect to iTunes so Apple ecosystem will work with them (aka ROKR).. in this partnership, just like he did with Xerox and Creative Labs prior to the rip of design and technology behind original iPod, he gets access/gets shown to the latest designs and ideas of the products to be released by these companies in a good will that the companies will work together..

He then, goes back to his office and has his army of slaves who he yells at and molests to make him a super high polished version/copy of the same product but with a bit of an Apple gloss.

Naturally, he can afford doing that because he basically stole the whole concept and R&D time and money that some of these companies invested and just stole ideas. This allows him to really considerably cut down on the time it takes to release a product.

This is standard operating procedure for Apple.. Steve Jobs is master at it and he has been doing forever.. and he doesn't really hide it... he admits it himself

But then again.. this is not the first thing they stole.. whole new line up of Apple's design is stolen from Dieter Rams. Almost every piece of modern Apple design is a straight rip from Dieter's concepts.

It comes down to Samsung copying everything from basic phone design, to app icons, to packaging...yes they even package them now to look like iPhone packages. Step back and look at the big picture and you'll clearly see Samsung is running the photo copiers.

Read it. Agree with it.

But, a rectangular device with rounded corners? That's uh, dumb. But since this is like the first or second case I've read about a trade dress suite, I can't say how it will go.

If anyone should sue, it should be Honda over kia's old optima and current forte. But maybe they are smart enough to know that suing them won't profit them.

Find me a post in this thread where he denies this. You're either being intentionally stupid, or not. I hope it's the former.

I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006 when the phone present here was introduced the month after the iPhone. Its the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

You're an obsessive stalker. You've even stalked him on his own blog. Yours, Menno Calaminus and Ireland's "persecution" of Dan is tiresome. Give it a break.

Who's that clown that keeps calling him "Digler"? Wasn't he the hero in Boogie Nights?

If someone makes their career out of attacking other platforms and the users of those platforms, it's expected that people will react negatively.

I'd like you to find any other writer on Anything approaching a "major" blog that ONLY posts negative screed's like DED does. It doesn't exist, because most sites don't give those types of users a podium. Most sites ban those types of users.

Think about this for a second, DED made an entire "Article" to debunk a MEME that people were posting on internet forums.

This is like AndroidCentral, Droid Life, Phandroid, Androidpolice, or even just normal Tech sites like Engadget or Thisismynext making an entire "Article" based off of something someone uploaded to 4chan and it somehow made it's way to their comments.

He posted an "article" about a MEME just so he could attack Android users. And he published it to AI instead of his personal blog. How in the world can this type of "post" be "respected."

yes, grids are obvious. and that's about as much similarity as there is between the "early" samsung phone and the iphone.

but there's a difference between grids of icons and grids of colored icons on a black background with white text under each icon and a series of white dots to indicate which of a series of horizontally distributed screens the user is on. it's the difference between "ooh that's a cool idea. we need to make a similar, competing product" and "ooh that's a cool idea. let's make one and put our logo on it! ...oh i guess we should move the white dots to the top or something, to make it look like a new idea."

Totally agree on the moving the white dots around. Here's the issue, though. From a UI design perspective where does it go from being a technology to a design standard or best practice. I mean, no one has heartburn over the fact that all major desktop OSes share UI elements like:

icons

scroll bars to reveal content larger than a view port

a set of 3 buttons at the top to close, minimize, or maximize windows

um... windows

etc.

Some software patents I totally get and support. Others, I'm leery on. In this case, I think it's obvious Apple's correct, but I don't think their suit is valid. The problem is in today's corporate world, you have to go over the edge on the offensive just to protect what is in fact yours. Too bad, really.

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..

So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.

Oh my.

Where is the proof of the way it looked in 2006?

How does this save Samsung from any other part of the suit?

How did you come to the conclusion that the iPhone was rushed to beat the Samsung F700 to a demo off?

Where is the proof of the F700 being released before the iPhone in June 2007?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006 when the phone present here was introduced the month after the iPhone. Its the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.

That's great, but irrelevant.

Let me take you back to your post:

1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?

Here's a simple yes or no question.

Did Menno deny that The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown? YES/NO (Correct answer is NO)

Why are you not getting this? It's painful to watch, but like a train wreck, I can't help it.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. If Apple is suing on trade dress grounds, the Prada is irrelevant even if that design resemble's Apples. Trade dress is based on 1) a shipping product (which the Prada is not), and 2) who the public associates a design with (e.g. if the public thinks of the iPhone when it sees a particular design made by somebody else, that infringes on Apple's trademark). If Apple is suing on a design patent, if Apple holds a patent on the overall design on the iPhone, the party Apple is suing has the burden of proving the patent isn't valid. As shown in the Microsoft case before the Supreme Court right now, the burden is very high to overturn a validly issued patent. If Apple is suing on a copyright theory, both Prada and Apple could hold copyrights in the exact same design provided both created each design independently without being aware of the others design. Samsung wouldn't be able to prove that as it altered its GUI dramatically to emulate Apple's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menno

This image shows that those factors are not unique to the iphone. (you can see something similar on the Prada, which even DED said came first).

I quoted it earlier. First he says that he agrees with the TouchWiz copying but then he switches to "Three points of apple's lawsuit claim to obfuscate the more relevvant points of the case and then states Those three things are present here, a phone announced (and shown) in December of 2006 when the phone present here was introduced the month after the iPhone. Its the LG Prada that was announced in December 2006.

This is your problem: You fail at understanding context.

Things written by the same person, even in the same thread, can be about different things.

I NEVER said that the design clauses were the only things, I never said (or implied) that they were the main parts of the lawsuit. I said that they were PART of the lawsuit, AFTER I already said Apple had a strong case when it came to touchwiz:http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=31
(The Full post that soli misquoted from, for those of you that actually care)

I don't know how clear I can make it for you, because obviously bone-dead simple isn't clear enough.

And your quote, that he's asking you to prove, is this:

Quote:

1) The Samsung F700 was shown in February 2007, AFTER the iPhone was shown. Whydo you keep denying this in regards to the Apple v Samsung case?

And again, I've NEVER said that I thought the F700 was announced before the iphone. What you quoted from me earlier (which was just a fragment of the post I wrote) doesn't have me defending the image. Why? Because I NEVER HAVE.

How did you come to the conclusion that the iPhone was rushed to beat the Samsung F700 to a “demo off”?

Where is the proof of the F700 being released before the iPhone in June 2007?

Because Samsung has been making phones before Apple even got into phone dumbass..

Yeah..I'm sure that Samsung waited to see Iphone and then in a month slapped together F700 and showed that..

Are you freakin' kidding me. F700 was their flagship product.. they've worked on that for a LONG time before the release..

Only Apple idiots can believe that a company that never made a phone before was copied by someone who was actually in that field previously..

Samsung wasn't even COMPETING with iPhone.. they were competing with LG Prada which was shown in 2006.. So F700 was supposed to be the answer to that phone..

Ah, the logic of Apple fanboys.. always mind-blowing..

Face it.. Apple steals EVERYTHING.. there isn't a single product in the history of the company that wasn't stolen. Starting with MacOS where concept and how it worked was stolen from Xerox.

Was it polished and made from higher quality materials? possibly.. but Apple steals crap..

So when you are trying to accuse that someone stole something from you but you stole every concept from the same company in part or as a whole.... you are nothing but a miserable little whining bitch and a hypocrite.

First of all.. Samsung F700 was mentioned and announced in second half of 2006. The phone was already designed and developed as it was Samsung's flagship product and has been in R&D for a while before iPhone was revealed..

So to say that just because F700 was shown a month after iPhone proves nothing but that Apple and Steve Jobs rushed iPhone announcement out to make sure it was shown before F700 because it looked very similar in designed.. More polished but similar. F700 was released before iPhone in the non-US and non-European markets and then came to Europe in November again close or before iPhone.

Now, let's address how Apple does these things and gets away with it..

Well it's easy.. Steve Jobs has this perfected from the Xerox days.. he goes and "partners" with companies like Samsung, Motorola and others and asks them to make a phone to connect to iTunes so Apple ecosystem will work with them (aka ROKR).. in this partnership, just like he did with Xerox and Creative Labs prior to the rip of design and technology behind original iPod, he gets access/gets shown to the latest designs and ideas of the products to be released by these companies in a good will that the companies will work together..

He then, goes back to his office and has his army of slaves who he yells at and molests to make him a super high polished version/copy of the same product but with a bit of an Apple gloss.

Naturally, he can afford doing that because he basically stole the whole concept and R&D time and money that some of these companies invested and just stole ideas. This allows him to really considerably cut down on the time it takes to release a product.

This is standard operating procedure for Apple.. Steve Jobs is master at it and he has been doing forever.. and he doesn't really hide it... he admits it himself

But then again.. this is not the first thing they stole.. whole new line up of Apple's design is stolen from Dieter Rams. Almost every piece of modern Apple design is a straight rip from Dieter's concepts.

Here's a tip Apple shillboys.. when you are trying to accuse someone of stealing ideas.. make sure that you are not the worst rip off artists in the room.

What are we talking about here.. Steve Jobs is a criminal.. he has been sued for stock fraud for Christ sake... He's not only a thief in design sense but in a traditional sense as well.

Please you act like the people that work for Apple hate Steve. Just the opposite, they in fact admire him and yes fear him too at times, but this comes with managing people. I take it you would not understand this. It is a fact that Apple has the BEST RETENTION rate of any company in Silicone Valley while under Steve. Also watch the movie Objectify. Dieter Rams was on there and he CLEARLY says only one company today takes "good design seriously" and that is Apple. And his ideas of design is a philosophy not a patented idea!!

Samsung is going to pay dearly, not only in losing the lawsuit and having their phones yanked, but they will eventually lose Apple's business where third parties will pick up the slack.

This will eventually cost Samsung an easy $5 - $10 Billion in lossed revenue from Apple, per year.

LOL at Apple will hold their pee-pees and diddle around their desks because there's no other manufacturer that has the capacity to meet this demand... not to mention that 80% of iPhones parts and patents in it are Samsung's..

Because Samsung has been making phones before Apple even got into phone dumbass..

Yeah..I'm sure that Samsung waited to see Iphone and then in a month slapped together F700 and showed that..

Are you freakin' kidding me. F700 was their flagship product.. they've worked on that for a LONG time before the release..

Only Apple idiots can believe that a company that never made a phone before was copied by someone who was actually in that field previously..

Samsung wasn't even COMPETING with iPhone.. they were competing with LG Prada which was shown in 2006.. So F700 was supposed to be the answer to that phone..

Ah, the logic of Apple fanboys.. always mind-blowing..

Face it.. Apple steals EVERYTHING.. there isn't a single product in the history of the company that wasn't stolen. Starting with MacOS where concept and how it worked was stolen from Xerox.

Was it polished and made from higher quality materials? possibly.. but Apple steals crap..

So when you are trying to accuse that someone stole something from you but you stole every concept from the same company in part or as a whole.... you are nothing but a miserable little whining bitch and a hypocrite.

Samsung has been making phones before Apple so that means Apple stole from Samsung per the article? Computer says no.

No one thinks the Samsung F700 copied the iPhone. The claim is that Apple copied the F700 and that the F700 was introduced before the iPhone. Computer says no.

Flagship so that means Apple copied the F700. Again I ask where is your proof. Computer says no.

So the iPhone UI demoed in 2007 hasnt changed much, yet the Samsung UI has kept evolving to look and feel more like iOS. How exactly did Apple copy Samsung from the future?

Again, the claim here is that Apple copied Samsung. Where is your proof? Computer says no.

PS: Dumbass? Apple Idiots? Apple fanboys? Good luck

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Please you act like the people that work for Apple hate Steve. Just the opposite, they in fact admire him and yes fear him too at times, but this comes with managing people. I take it you would not understand this. It is a fact that Apple had the BEST RETENTION rate of any company in Silicone Valley while under Steve. Also watch the movie Objectify. Dieter Rams was on there and he CLEARLY says only one company today takes "good design seriously" and that is Apple.

For the most part people working at Apple are scared shitless from being fired or worse.. they work insane hours (like a sweatshop).. talk to people who left Apple and you'll understand maybe instead of talking out of your ass.

Apple does take good design seriously.. who says they don't? But they steal it. That's the point.. They see best things that someone else thinks of and they steal it.

Yeah right. Prove it. When DED mentioned google was trying to "silence him" was he trolling for page hits or just talking about how it sucks to be in an accident and out for a few weeks?

Why don't you ask who Prince McLean is the next time you see him?

I think the first time I knew about a bike accident was when you mentioned that alleged conspiracy theory here. Frankly, I trust your interpretation of whatever DED wrote about as much as 3 bullets in Dealey Plaza. But you wouldn't know about that.

Also, i'm pretty sure you were my source on 'Prince' being outed here. I find Prince's writings eminently charming and reasonable, well researched and true. But, you're not familiar with those concepts.

However, another poster here had a point a few posts back.

Vitriolic attacks on the writers here is frowned upon by me too. Frankly, if I were pulling the pixels, you'd not have a forum here.

But I never advocate against free speech. Except in the case of private entities enforcing their own rulz. Which I would, in your case.

Why don't you hang over at AndroidCentral and extoll that kludge while denigrating Brand X.

For the most part people working at Apple are scared shitless from being fired or worse.. they work insane hours (like a sweatshop).. talk to people who left Apple and you'll understand maybe instead of talking out of your ass.

Apple does take good design seriously.. who says they don't? But they steal it. That's the point.. They see best things that someone else thinks of and they steal it.

Braun products on the left, Apple on the right

Stolen

Stolen

Stolen

Stolen

Read the book The Steve Jobs Way: iLeadership for the nest generation ass. Jay Elliot worked along side of Steve for many years. Get a feel of a man who worked with Steve first hand and knew the people who did. Also why did the people at NeXT stay with Steve when clearly NeXT was not going to be a big company? These people follow a leader who has a devotion to a product on a concept and stay with it to the end. It is ironic or maybe "luck" if we listen to you that Steve knows how to find "good talent" over and over again. Just look at the people who have left Apple to start there own companies under Steve's leadership! Yes I think highly of the man, but I also think highly of Henry Ford and Walt Disney! Steve Jobs WILL go down, if not already, in history as one of the elite entrepreneurs. Hands Down!!! So take your hate and GTFO Appleinsider!!

Nice images - thanks for the post - and shows a significant style influence (that Ive readily admits), but to be fair it should be noted that the pairs of products are actually completely different devices:

Radio / computer
Radio / iPod
Radio / computer
Speaker / computer

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndroidDomination

For the most part people working at Apple are scared shitless from being fired or worse.. they work insane hours (like a sweatshop).. talk to people who left Apple and you'll understand maybe instead of talking out of your ass.

Apple does take good design seriously.. who says they don't? But they steal it. That's the point.. They see best things that someone else thinks of and they steal it.

I think the first time I knew about a bike accident was when you mentioned that alleged conspiracy theory here. Frankly, I trust your interpretation of whatever DED wrote about as much as 3 bullets in Dealey Plaza. But you wouldn't know about that.

Uh, it's right there on his blog for you to see. I don't need to make shit up.

He's so predictable. First he posts 10 page articles on why Android isn't free and why it will become the WinMob of phones, to the current state where he posts about hating the android, the logo and anything google. The rate at which this happens is directly proportional to android's market share/popularity.

Quote:

Also, i'm pretty sure you were my source on 'Prince' being outed here. I find Prince's writings eminently charming and reasonable, well researched and true. But, you're not familiar with those concepts.

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? Stop posting shit and answer the question.

Quote:

Vitriolic attacks on the writers here is frowned upon by me too. Frankly, if I were pulling the pixels, you'd not have a forum here.

But I never advocate against free speech. Except in the case of private entities enforcing their own rulz. Which I would, in your case.

Why don't you hang over at AndroidCentral and extoll that kludge while denigrating Brand X.

Hey Android central doesn't troll for apple fanboi's! There aren't any apple articles! But you couldn't be assed to check that site out for 1 minute to come to that conclusion!